I have huge admiration for people who complete their degrees by submitting portfolios. It is not the easy route although it is often a very practical route.
The rules in any mainstream country require that outcomes are the same, whatever the arrival point of the candidate. It is how those outcomes are measured that is the debating point. My own personal benchmark is that at some time, somewhere, a business graduate is going to be stood in an interview queue and the guy at the front is going to ask ‘So where, for you, does Production rate in the 7Ps for this particular organisation?’ Any recent business grad may go into a tail-spin wondering what Ps 3 and 6 might be but they will know that there are 7Ps of service marketing. It is grossly unfair to give a degree to people who cannot talk the talk.
I do not expect the practical people to be able to out-quote or out-reference the mainstream candidates but, frequently, they can. That is a problem for the academic/traditional stream to sort out.
For now, my view is that equivalence is not poor relationship: it is equal value and that value needs to be seen in terms of what the market understands the outcomes to be. Can one really earn a degree on the basis of a job description or business card?